New York University
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development
Department of Teaching and Learning
ENGE-GE.2511: Teaching Expository Writing
Fall 2014
Wednesday 4:55 – 6:35
Location: TISC LC4
Professor: Dr. Sarah Beck
Office: 239 Greene Street, East Building, Room 520
Phone: 212-998-5473
Email (preferred means of contact): [email protected]
Office Hours: Wednesday 2:30-4:30
Course Description and Overview
This course is designed to help teachers of writing at the secondary and post-secondary levels to
understand better what makes writing different from other forms of linguistic communication
(reading, writing, speaking) and to gain awareness of the contextual factors and instructional
techniques that promote writing development. The focus will be on expository writing, which is
defined in this course as any form of writing, the purpose of which is to inform, describe,
explain, argue or persuade.
Specifically, this course will emphasize the following topics:
how writing varies across disciplines (e.g. science, history, literary analysis)
in terms of genre and process,
the importance of teaching grammar in the context of meaningful writing,
and with awareness of the rich linguistic knowledge that children who speak
dialects other than Standard English bring to their literacy learning;
the importance of developing a positive social context for writing instruction
in the classroom;
how assessment can be used to support instruction and to provide students
with a sense of agency in their own writing development.
Teachers who write, and are comfortable sharing with students the struggles and successes
they have had with writing, are especially well qualified to support students’ development
as writers. For this reason the class will require you to participate in a workshop group, in
which you will share your own writing and respond to the writing of others in a workshop
format (more about this later).
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 2 of 13
Learner Objectives
to…
After completing all of the requirements for this course, students will be able
Describe the writing process, explain how processes vary from writer to writer
and what teachers can do to support students at different stages of the process;
Describe the kinds of writing task that are characteristic of particular school
disciplines;
Describe methods of formative and summative assessment of writing and explain
their different purposes;
Explain what it means to teach grammar authentically in the writing classroom,
and describe methods of doing so;
Describe the special challenges that second-language writers/English Language
Learners (ELLs) face with writing, and best practices for addressing those
challenges
Course Requirements
Regular attendance in class and active participation in all class activities,
including writing workshops and discussion.
Ongoing weekly responses to the readings, to be posted in the CLASSES Forum
for that week. Responses should be between 200 and 300 words in length and
should offer some original thoughts on the reading, perhaps as a critique
(positive or negative) or well-considered questions that the reading raised for
you. Connections between the readings and your own classroom experiences as
a teacher and/or learner are especially welcome. These responses MUST be
completed by class time or they will not count. Participation via response to
readings on CLASSES will be considered part of your class participation grade. If
you are a quiet person who would rather share your thoughts in writing than
speak in front of a group, take advantage of CLASSES to make your voice heard.
On-time submission of three pieces of written work. You will have an
opportunity to share most of these pieces with members of your “peer response
group” either on-line or in class. Rough draft and final draft due dates are listed
next to the description of each assignment and in the schedule of course
meetings. Completing drafts of writing assignments on time – including rough
drafts -- is an essential part of your participation in the course.
1) Writing Autobiography
In this assignment you are invited to revisit and reflect on your own history
as a writer. You need not focus on expository writing for this assignment but
consider that as one possible focus, along with writing about source texts.
Some questions you may want to consider: How did you learn to write?
What challenges did you face as a writer and how did you overcome them?
What experiences have shaped you as a writer, but in-school and out-ofschool? How would you characterize your attitude towards writing, and
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 3 of 13
what influences shaped this attitude? What mentors helped you to become
the writer you are today?
Length: 3-4 pages
Due Dates: First Draft: 9/22
Final Draft: 10/1
2) An essay on your beliefs about writing instruction
This essay should be structured as an argument about how writing should be
taught. It should be written as an argument, with a central claim or set of
claims, supported by evidence. We will discuss different approaches to
argument structure in class (some of you may be familiar with the notions of
backing, warrants, and counterclaims, for example). Include references to
course readings or other sources to support your views, as well as examples
from your own experience. Keep in mind also that descriptive and narrative
elements – such as a concise anecdote -- can be used for persuasive effect.
Note: You are encouraged, but in no way required, to consider
submitting your writing to a professional journal. If this piques your interest,
review the Column calls for submissions in English Journal, the “View from
the Chalkboard” section of The Reading Teacher (for those of you interested
in writing about middle school), the Rethinking Schools website or other
similar publication outlet for your writing.
Length:
4-5 pages.
DUE DATES: First Draft: 11/3
Final Draft: 11/12
3) Unit Plan. This culminating project is designed to help you synthesize your
learning in the course and to help me assess what you have learned. It
should focus on the teaching of expository writing, which is writing that aims
to inform, describe, explain, argue or persuade, and which makes use of
source texts. The source texts may be literary (in which case the unit would
be about literary analysis) or informational (in which case the unit would be
about another genre such as persuasion, or the historical essay). For this
assignment you should create a 2-3 week unit that will support your students
in reading and discussing the texts, developing ideas for their writing, and
moving successfully through all phases of the writing process.
The plan should have the following elements:
a) Executive Summary
Summarize your unit plan in 250 words or less.
b) Description of students and context
This section should describe the students and the teaching context, which
would include any curricular frameworks or requirements that you need to
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 4 of 13
adhere to. If you are teaching our student teaching, I encourage you to use
this teaching context. If you are not currently teaching, you may use a context
that you are observing, that you have observed, or alternatively you may
make up a context.
c) Learning Objectives:
You should have 5-6 learning objectives for your unit. These objectives
should answer the question, “What do I want my students to know and be
able to do at the end of the unit?”
d) Common Core State Standards (if you are designing this unit for secondary
students)
Identify which of the CCSS’s you are meeting with this unit.
e) Evidence of Learning Objectives Achieved
For each of your learning objectives, describe (1) where you will find
evidence that students have mastered that objective (e.g. drafts of their
writing, exit slips, participation in discussion, peer feedback sheets); and (2)
how you will define mastery. Provide assessment tools such as rubrics,
grading sheets, etc. as needed (see below).
f) Overview of Lesson Plans
For each day (so, for 10-15 days in a 2-3 week unit) include the following:
Daily Objectives, Description of Activities, and Method of Assessment (how
you will know that the students have learned what you intended to teach
them). The description of each day’s activities should fit in 1 page of text in
12-point font, single-spaced.
g) Handouts, Rubrics, and Related Documents
(put these in Appendices lettered A,B, C, etc.)
Include here anything you would distribute to students, including copies of
the source texts (other than books), as well as tools for evaluation and
record-keeping.
h) Discussion (3-4 pp., double-spaced)
In this final section you will discuss which aspects of the course and course
readings informed the design of your unit plan. The following questions may
help to guide your thinking about this section:
What is challenging, typically, about the writing task that is the focus of
your unit?
What is challenging for the particular students for whom you have
designed it?
How are the activities you have chosen designed to support students in
meeting these challenges?
Why did you choose the methods of assessment that you chose?
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 5 of 13
I expect you to incorporate references to the course readings; references
to readings from other courses are also welcome. Be sure to cite your
sources properly using APA style (6th edition)
Length: 20-25 pp.
DUE DATE: First Draft: 11/26
Final Draft: 12/10
Attendance Policy:
Attendance in class is mandatory. If you must miss class because of a medical or other personal
emergency, I expect you to let me know in advance. Missing more than 2 classes during the
term, for any reason other than one excused by a doctor’s note, will result in a reduction of your
grade.
Grading Policy:
Your final grade will be determined according to the following formula:
Assignment/Activity
Percentage
of Final
grade:
Participation:
*Regular attendance in class and participation in class discussion;
*Posting of responses to readings on CLASSES site.
20%
Writing Autobiography
15 %
Writing Beliefs Essay
20%
Final Project – Unit Plan
45%
You must submit your rough drafts of assigned work on time, by the date specified in the
syllabus, so that your group members will have time to read it. Failure to submit work on
time will affect your grade for that assignment: a half-grade will be deducted (e.g. from Ato B+) if you do not submit your work to your peers in advance.
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 6 of 13
Detailed criteria for evaluating written work are included in Appendix A. A rubric for
evaluating class participation is included in Appendix B.
You may revise any graded work up until the last class meeting, and if the revision
demonstrates improvement your final grade will be adjusted accordingly. You must submit
the original graded version along with the revision.
Students with Disabilities
Any student attending NYU who needs an accommodation due to a chronic, psychological,
visual, mobility and/or learning disability, or is Deaf or Hard of Hearing should register
with
the Moses Center for Students with Disabilities at 212 998-4980, 726 Broadway, 2nd Floor,
www.nyu.edu/csd.
Academic Integrity
It is expected that all work submitted for the class will be original. NYUSteinhardt and the
Department of Teaching and Learning treat matters of academic integrity with the utmost
seriousness. For a full description of Steinhardt’s policies and sanctions regarding
Academic Integrity see the following link:
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/policies/academic_integrity
Course Readings:
Required Texts (available for purchase in the NYU Bookstore):
Campbell, K. and Latimer, K. (2012). Beyond the five-paragraph essay. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Ehrenworth, M. & Vinton, V. (2005). The power of grammar: Unconventional approaches to
the conventions of language. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2013). The ELL writer: Moving beyond basics in the secondary
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Additional required readings listed in the syllabus are available via links on the course
CLASSES site under the “Resources” bar. Readings may be changed as the course progresses
to accommodate the needs and interests of the class.
The CLASSES site will also be the medium through which you will exchange papers with
members of your response group; groups will be created on the site for this purpose.
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 7 of 13
Schedule
Week 1 – September 3:
Introduction: what is good writing and how do we
recognize it?
How do our own experiences as writers contribute to our beliefs, values and
strategies as teachers?
The relationship between features of a text and reader response/comprehension
Differences between narrative and exposition: language, structure and function
Week 2 – September 10: Theoretical Perspectives
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32, 4, 365-387.
Everson, B. (1991). Vygotsky and the Teaching of Writing. The Quarterly of the National
Writing Project, 13, 3, 8-11.
Schleppegrell, M. (2007). The meaning in grammar. Research in the Teaching of English,
42, 1, 121-128.
Week 3 – September 17:
The policy context for teaching writing
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of
adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Common Core State Standards for:
Reading & Writing (K-12)
Grades 6-12 Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science & Technical
Subjects (Writing)
***9/22 (MONDAY): ROUGH DRAFT OF WRITING AUTOBIOGRAPHY DUE
Week 4 – September 24: The Relationship between Writing and Thinking:
Disciplinary Literacy
Beck, S. & Jeffery, J. (2009). Genre and thinking in academic writing tasks. Journal of
Literacy Research, 41, 2, 228-272.
Rainey, E. & Moje, E. (2012). Building insider knowledge: Teaching students to read, write
and think within ELA and across the disciplines. English Education, 45, 1, 71-90.
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 8 of 13
Friend, R. (2001). Teaching summarization as a content-area reading strategy. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 4, 320-329.
Thonney, T. (2011). Teaching the conventions of academic discourse. TETYC, 38, 4, 347362.
IN CLASS: WORKSHOP OF WRITING AUTOBIOGRAPHY
Week 5 – October 1: Second-Language writers in the ELA classroom
Ortmeier-Hooper, Chapters 1-7
FINAL DRAFT OF WRITING AUTOBIOGRAPHY DUE
Week 6 – October 8: Writing Process
Ortmeier Hooper, Chapter 4
Beck, S., Llosa, L, & Fredrick, T. (2013). The challenges of writing exposition: Lessons from a
study of ELL and non-ELL high school students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29, 4, 358380.
Patthey-Chavez et al, (2004) Investigating the process approach to writing instruction in an
urban middle school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47, 6, 462-479.
Week 7 – October 15: Inspiring and Supporting Students as writers
Campbell & Lattimer, Ch. 1-5
Week 8 – October 22: Revision
Saddler, B. (2003). But Teacher I Added a Period! Voices from the Middle, 11, 2, 20-26.
Myhill, D. & Jones, S. (2007) More than Just Error Correction. Written Communication, 24, 4,
323-343.
Sandmann, A. (2006) Nurturing thoughtful revision using the Focused Question Card
Strategy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50, 1, 20-28.
Week 9 – October 29: Better writing through grammar study
Ehrenworth & Vinton, Ch. 1-4
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 9 of 13
Turner, K. H. (2009). Flipping the switch: Code-switching from text-speak to Standard
English. English Journal, 98, 5, 60-65.
***11/3 (MONDAY): ROUGH DRAFT OF WRITING BELIEFS ESSAY DUE
Week 10 – November 5: Using models in the writing classroom
Ehrenworth & Vinton, Chapter 5
Campbell & Lattimer, Chapters 6-7
IN CLASS: WORKSHOP OF WRITING BELIEFS ESSAY
Week 11 – November 12: Formative Assessment, Conferencing, and Responding to
Student Writing
McIver, M & Wolf, S. (1999). The power of the conference is the power of suggestion.
Language Arts, 77, 1, 54-61.
Romeo, L. (2008). Informal writing assessment linked to instruction: A continuous process
for teachers, students and parents. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24-1, 25-51.
Andrade, H., Buff, C., Terry, J., Erano, M. & Paolino, S. (2009). Assessment-driven
improvements in middle-school students’ writing. Middle School Journal, 40, 4, 4-12.
Graff, N. (2009). Approaching authentic peer review. English Journal, 98, 5, 81-87.
Ortmeier-Hooper, Ch. 8
FINAL DRAFT OF WRITING BELIEFS ESSAY DUE IN CLASS
Week 12 – November 19: Summative Assessment
Heller, S. (2004). The art of grading papers quickly and effectively. English Journal, 94, 1,
115-119.
Wilson, M. (2007). Why I Won't Be Using Rubrics to Respond to Students' Writing. English
Journal, 96(4), 62-6.
Spandel, V. (2006). In Defense of Rubrics. English Journal, 96, 1, 19-22.
Turley, E. & Gallagher, C. (2008). On the Uses of Rubrics: Reframing the great rubric debate.
English Journal, 97, 4, 87-92.
Wilder, S. (1997). Pruning too early: The thorny issue of grading student writing. Quarterly
of the National Writing Project, 19, 4, 34-39.
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 10 of 13
Fredrick, T. (2009). Looking in the mirror: Helping adolescents talk more reflectively
during portfolio presentations. Teachers College Record, 111, 8, 1916-1929.
Week 13 – November 26: Support for Struggling/Striving Writers (VIRTUAL CLASS)
Olson, C., Land, R., Anselmi, T., AuBuchon, C. (2010). Teaching Secondary English Learners
to understand, analyze, and write interpretive essays about theme. Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy, 54, 4, 245-256.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2003). Writing Instruction for Struggling Adolescent Readers: A
Gradual Release Approach. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46, 5, 396-405.
Santangelo, T., Harris, K & Graham, S. (2007). Self-regulated strategy development: A
validated model to support students who struggle with writing. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 5, 1, 1-20.
FIRST DRAFT UNIT PLAN DUE TO WORKSHOP GROUP
Week 14 – December 3: Workshop of Curriculum Unit Plan
Reading: unit plan drafts from members of your response group
Week 15 – December 10: NO CLASS TODAY – LEGISLATIVE DAY
FINAL PROJECTS DUE TODAY
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 11 of 13
Appendix A
Evaluation Criteria
Each assignment will have a specific set of requirements that you will need to meet; in
addition to evaluating whether you have met those specific requirements I will also employ
the following general criteria in assigning a grade to your work.
A (93-100), A-(90-92)
The reader or listener can feel a mind at work. “A” level work (written or oral)
demonstrates exceptional breadth and depth of understanding of the subject matter,
proficient use of existing research literature and exceptional skill in analysis and synthesis
of ideas. Original and insightful connections are made across different content areas,
research methodologies and/or theoretical perspectives. The speaker/author articulates
ideas with precision and clarity, and shows creativity and personal engagement with the
topic. The A paper or presentation has all the good qualities of B-level work, but in addition
(whether spoken or written) it is lively, well-paced, interesting, and even exciting. We are
convinced that the writer/speaker cares for his or her ideas, and about the language that
conveys them. An “A” paper may have a proofreading error or two, or even a misspelled
word, but the reader feels that these errors are the consequence of the normal accidents all
good writers encounter. An A- paper or presentation meets most of the criteria listed
above, falling short in just one or two areas.
B+ (87-89), B (83-86), B- (80-82)
The reader of a B paper knows exactly what the author wants to say; the paper makes
sense throughout. Work at this level demonstrates good understanding (depth and
breadth) of the subject matter, good use of existing research literature and strong analytic
and critical thinking skills. Ideas are well articulated in both oral and written form; shows
some degree of creativity and personal engagement with the topic. It is well organized, it
presents a worthwhile and interesting idea, and the idea is supported by sound evidence
presented in a neat and orderly way. Sentences may not be elegant, but they are clear.
Paragraphs are organized around one main idea, though they may ramble a bit. The reader
does not have to read a paragraph two or three times to understand the thought the writer
is trying to convey. The B paper is mechanically correct, with good spelling and accurate
punctuation. A B+ paper has all of the elements of a B paper but is especially strong in one
or two of the elements. A B- paper is missing one or two of the elements listed above, but
still has obvious strengths as compared to a paper belonging in the C category.
C+ (77-79), C (73-76), C- (70-72)
The C paper has a thesis or focus, but it is vague and broad, or else it is uninteresting or
obvious. C-level work demonstrates adequate breadth and depth of understanding of the
subject matter, and some ability to use existing research literature in simple ways, with
only some evidence of analytic and critical thinking. Main ideas are present in gist form, but
need to be developed further; there is little evidence of creativity and/or a low level of
personal engagement with the topic. It does not advance an argument that anyone might
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 12 of 13
care to debate. The thesis in the C paper often hangs on some personal opinion that is not
robustly defended with evidence. The C paper rarely uses evidence well; sometimes it does
not use evidence at all. Even if it has a clear and interesting thesis, a paper with insufficient
supporting evidence is a C paper. The C paper often has mechanical faults, errors in
grammar and spelling, but a paper without such flaws may still be a C paper.
Unsatisfactory: D+ (65-69), D (60-64); F (<60)
Breadth and depth of understanding of the subject matter are minimal and use of existing
research literature is shallow. There is scant evidence of analytic and critical thinking skills,
oral and written skills are barely adequate, and there is no indication of creative thinking
and personal engagement with the topic. The D or F paper has no thesis or else it has one
that is strikingly vague, broad, or uninteresting. There is little indication that the writer
understands the material being presented. The paragraphs do not hold together; ideas do
not develop from sentence to sentence. This paper usually repeats the same thoughts again
and again, perhaps in slightly different language but often in the same words. The D or F
paper is filled with mechanical faults, errors in grammar, and errors in spelling.
ENGED-GE.2511 Fall 2014, Page 13 of 13
Appendix B
Class Participation Rubric1
Grade
Criteria
9-10 points
*Actively supports, engages and listens to peers
*arrives fully prepared at class sessions
*plays an active role in discussions
*comments tend to advance the level of dialogue
*makes a sincere effort to interact with peers
*arrives mostly, if not fully, prepared
*participates constructively in discussions
*makes relevant contributions based on the assigned reading
*limited interaction with peers
*preparation and level of participation are inconsistent
*when prepared, makes relevant contributions based on the
assigned reading
*virtually no interaction with peers
*rarely prepared
*rarely participates
*comments are vague and/0r not relevant to the assigned material
*sometimes demonstrates a notable lack of interest
*no interaction with peers
*never prepared
*never participates
*consistently demonstrates a noticeable lack of interest in the
material
7-8 points
5-6 points
3-4 points
1-2 points
1
(Adapted from Chapnick, A. (no date). Creating a class participation rubric. In Tips for Encouraging Student
Participation in Class Discussions. Madison, WI: Magna. Available http://www.facultyfocus.com/free-reports/tipsfor-encouraging-student-participation-in-classroom-discussions/ Accessed July 25, 2012.